If people are still talking about you 400 years later, you must have made an impression. Such is the case with William Shakespeare, the most famous playwright in the English language.

Shakespeare's plays aren't just popular on stage, either. We've recently seen some big-screen adaptations of his works. One, "Much Ado About Nothing," was just released on DVD and Blu-Ray on October 8. Another, "Romeo and Juliet," hit screens in a limited release on October 11.

There's lots of obvious differences between these two Hollywood adaptations. One is a very personal project from director Joss Whedon, the other is a lavish and traditional adaptation. One has a cast of regulars from Whedon projects like "Angel" and "Firefly," while the other is is filled with rising stars and big-name character actors. One was shot in Whedon's house, the other on location in Verona, Italy.

How is it that a "safe" adaptation of Shakespeare's most popular play is being torn apart by Shakespeare fans, while a relatively lesser-known comedy with a gimmicky setting made by a niche genre director and his pals is welcomed with open arms? Let's discuss, with the following list of do's and don'ts for any aspiring to create an adaptation:

View full sizeAlexis Denisoff as Benedick and Amy Acker as Beatrice in "Much Ado About Nothing"Lionsgate/Bellweather Pictures

Do: be creative with the setting

"Much Ado About Nothing" is about a duke and other gentry following a war. More importantly, it's about relationships, expectations, and the absurd lengths people go to when they're in love (or when they're denying that they're in love). Putting them in a modern setting doesn't hurt the plot, and despite a rather medieval attitude towards female sexuality, nothing occurs in the story that can't, and doesn't, still occur today.

Meanwhile, slavishly Renaissance hose-and-dublet adaptations, while certainly one possible approach, are hardly the only way to tell a story like "Romeo and Juliet." Shakespeare himself wrote stories about Greeks and Romans, but dressed his actors in then-contemporary costumes with then-contemporary language. All of his plays are just begging for creative ideas in the staging, be it for stage or screen. And with the Franco Zeffirelli 1968 version of "Romeo and Juliet" still very fondly remembered, why go back to that well so soon?

Don't: think that changing the setting is always the answer

Speaking personally, one of my least-favorite film adaptations of Shakespeare is 2000's "Hamlet" starring Ethan Hawke. A drama of kings and succession is reduced to a paranoid corporate espionage thriller. The climactic sword duel is ended by a gunshot out of nowhere. Oh, and delivering the "To be or not to be" soliloquy inside a Blockbuster? The most famous existential debate in Western drama is a bit more complicated than "what movie should I rent?"

Putting kings and dukes in business suits is not a sure-fire way to ensure relevance. Plenty of period-appropriate adaptations are out there, and they're great - including Kenneth Branagh's "Henry V," and the recent PBS Masterpiece series "The Hollow Crown." After all, a corporate takeover is a bit like warfare, but they don't usually end with one CEO murdering another.

View full sizeIan McKellen as the title role in "Richard III"United Artists

Do: condense the play

No matter how much you love Shakespeare, let's be honest: three or four hours is a long time to watch a play. If it's not utterly captivating, it can be a very long time. So be practical. You don't need to keep every single word of the original text - especially since scholars have long debated just how accurate the "original" texts really are to what Shakespeare wrote, as many of the plays weren't even published until after his death.

The 1995 adaptation of "Richard III," starring Ian McKellen as the reviled king, was liberally condensed into a manageable feature film. Three prominent characters, each of them a queen, was distilled down into one single character portrayed by Maggie Smith. Similarly, several supporting roles are combined to beef up the role of Rivers for Robert Downey Jr. The result? A potentially convoluted story just gets leaner and more exciting. The fact that Maggie Smith and Robert Downey Jr. get more lines is just a bonus.

Don't: re-write the poetry

This is the major sin committed by this year's "Romeo and Juliet." Julian Fellowes, the mastermind behind melodramatic hit "Downton Abbey," wrote the script, and he played fast and loose with the original material. Forget just cutting or condensing lines - new dialogue was added or re-written entirely, which is awfully jarring to even casual Shakespeare fans. Elizabethan-era metaphor and rhyming couplets are smashed up with heavy-handed, not-quite-modern exposition.

In a move that was apparently meant to make the film more accessible, the lasting appeal of Shakespeare - the poetry of his writing - was lost. There's a reason quotes from Shakespeare's plays are among the most famous in the English language. If the people producing the film are so intimidated by Shakespeare's writing that they don't even use it, maybe they should, y'know, make a different movie. Stick to the post-war pillow talk between British aristocracy, Mr. Fellowes.

View full sizeBryce Dallas Howard as Rosalind and David Oyelowo as Orlando in "As You Like It"HBO Films/BBC Films

Do: take chances in casting

I've got plenty of heroes in the British pantheon of thespians. Generally speaking, their dramatic tradition gives them a bit on an advantage when playing Shakespearian roles. That said, I hardly think you need to cast actors from the British Isles in every role. Or even when you do, they can surprise you - like Russel Brand in 2010's "The Tempest," or Gerard Butler in 2012's "Coriolanus." Neither is really known for their classical acting chops, but both are more than capable. And when Julie Taymor re-imagined "The Tempest" with Helen Mirren as the traditionally-male lead character Prospero, Shakespeare fans rejoiced.

It would be impossible to list all of the American-born Hollywood actors with Shakespeare-friendly resumes. But some memorable performances in Shakespeare films have come from such unlikely actors as Bill Murray, Matthew Lillard, Nathan Fillion, John Leguizamo Robert Downey Jr. and Billy Crystal. Bryce Dallas Howard was wonderful as Rosiland in "As You Like It" (even if she had to do a British accent) and Jessica Lange is insanely good as Tamora in the blood-soaked "Titus."

And I can't be the only one who's wondered about how a Tim Burton/Johnny Depp "Macbeth" would look, right?

View full sizeEthan Hawke as Hamlet and Julia Stiles as Ophelia in "Hamlet"Miramax Films

Don't: cast people who can't do it

This would seem obvious, right? But sadly, it's all too common in criticism of Shakespeare adaptations. Performing, or even understanding, Shakespeare's language can be a challenge if you're not familiar with it. Maybe some actors are too used to the subtleties of film work to nail the inherent melodrama. Or maybe they just don't understand what it is they're saying. Either way, sometimes it's painfully obvious that certain actors were miscast.

This is another big complaint about the new "Romeo and Juliet." Hailiee Steinfeld, unanimously praised for a bravura performance in "True Grit," is cited in nearly every review as rushing and mumbling through her lines as Juliet. Julia Stiles, who played Ophelia in "Hamlet," was similarly out of her depth. If you've got to cast talent that just can't handle the language, just do a modern story inspired by the Bard, like "My Own Private Idaho," "10 Things I Hate About You."

View full sizeAn image from "Ran," an adaptation of Shakespeare's "King Lear" by Japanese director Akira KurosawaToho/Nippon Herald Films

Do: come up with a bold concept

"Richard III" is about an English king, but give it a 1930s setting and you add a frightening overtone of fascism. The polarizing "Romeo + Juliet" turns Verona into a Los Angeles-inspired beach city rife with gang warfare, which is exactly the world that young people in the 1990s understood. "Coriolanus" is about a Roman general who excels at war but self-destructs as a politician - what better setting for that story than war-torn Eastern Europe?

The concept involves more than just a setting update. Julie Taymor's "Titus" is a violent mash-up of ancient and future Rome, encapsulated by a prologue where a child is playing with all sorts of action figures. Two of the greatest films adapted from Shakespeare's work aren't even in English - "Ran" and "Throne of Blood" are both haunting masterpieces by acclaimed Japanese director Akira Kurosawa, loosely adapted into stories about Japanese samurai warlords rather than British kings. There's a fine line between being faithful to the story and being constrained by it.

The sensibilities of film and theater are obviously very different. But if you really want to get a sense of what these stories are about, there is no shortage of productions that are filmed almost directly from the stage. In particular, no Bard buff should go without watching the productions of "Macbeth" and "Othello" directed by Trevor Nunn for the Thames Shakespeare Collection.

The PBS program Masterpiece has also produced many adaptations of Shakespeare's work, starring renown talent like Ian McKellen as "King Lear," Patrick Stewart as "Macbeth," David Tennant as "Hamlet" and many others. Their most recent series, "The Hollow Crown," is more cinematic, but it's a gorgeous adaptation of four of Shakespeare's history plays. And best of all? They're free!

View full sizeA publicity photo from the Harrisburg Shakespeare Company's upcoming production of "Coriolanus," which opens on Nov. 2 at Gamut Theatre.Provided photo

Do: support local theater!

With all this talk of Shakespeare, be sure to check out the Harrisburg Shakespeare Company's production of "Coriolanus," which opens November 2 at Gamut Theatre in Harrisburg. "Coriolanus" is not performed very often by Shakespeare companies, let alone other theaters. This production will feature an intriguing concept inspired by the divisive politics of the postbellum United States and the bloody Indian Wars. Check it out columnist Ellen Hughes' preview of the show, and decide for yourself if the adaptation was up to Shakespeare snuff!